Advertisements

¬a\/b alias "Rsolscarliola", wrote:
> Belive it or not, with my little symbols language assembly is
> 1000 times better than C in **in practice**
>
> Can you write what this below does, better and more clear in C?

Even the Cosmic Microwave Background would be clearer than your mess.
By the way, I'm sure anything that your little language can do can be
done in C. The only disadvantages might be better portability,
readability, acceptance, industry conformance, etc. etc.

¬a\/b wrote:
> Belive it or not, with my little symbols language assembly is
> 1000 times better than C in **in practice**

Only for you. It *is* inventive! It *is* original thought! But, it
does a lot more than RosAsm, HLA, or Daniela/Windela/Lindela in terms
of kicking against the mainstream way of doing things. I suggest that
you write a manual for it and post it as an Esoteric programming
language.

Evenbit wrote:
> ¬a\/b wrote:
> > Belive it or not, with my little symbols language assembly is
> > 1000 times better than C in **in practice**
>
> Only for you. It *is* inventive! It *is* original thought! But, it
> does a lot more than RosAsm, HLA, or Daniela/Windela/Lindela in terms
> of kicking against the mainstream way of doing things. I suggest that
> you write a manual for it and post it as an Esoteric programming
> language.

IMHO, not *all* that original. Terse and APL are two languages, among
possibly others, that are pretty close, syntactically, to symbol guy's
soup.

Pros :
- It's small. Once learned, I guess you can write fast code without
typing hundreds of lines.
- It's ugly. I see it as an advantage, because then your source code
is automatically obfuscated Well... Not that much though, but still

Cons :
- It's ugly. Sorry but nobody would want to learn a language that
gives a headache after reading 2 lines with so many signs, already C is
bashed for it's symbols soup, but your is like C but worse.
- It's hard to see the program flow.. I don't feel the flow of the
program "reading" your code, it's like so little that it looks like a
micro program.. Doesn't feel that good tbh.
- The use of such short variable names for registers is like
overkill. The register already have short names, no need to further
more shorten them imo.

Overall, it's an interesting addition to the existing bunch of
programming languages available; There WILL be people who like it, like
there is people who like to dress with flowers on their trousers. So
post it somewhere, document it, my advice

On 6 Dec 2006 00:43:34 -0800, KiLVaiDeN wrote:
>> ¬a\/b wrote :
>> Lot of lines [snipped..]
>Cons :
> - It's ugly. Sorry but nobody would want to learn a language that
>gives a headache after reading 2 lines with so many signs, already C is
>bashed for it's symbols soup, but your is like C but worse.

for me is clearer and easier than all your languages, in fact i can
write code in that language that in another one language is impossible
to write because too difficult.
> - It's hard to see the program flow.. I don't feel the flow of the
>program "reading" your code, it's like so little that it looks like a
>micro program.. Doesn't feel that good tbh.
> - The use of such short variable names for registers is like
>overkill. The register already have short names, no need to further
>more shorten them imo.

x86 assembly registers others assemblers have, are not short name
enough

On 5 Dec 2006 18:23:55 -0800, Evenbit wrote:
>¬a\/b wrote:
>> Belive it or not, with my little symbols language assembly is
>> 1000 times better than C in **in practice**
>Only for you. It *is* inventive! It *is* original thought! But, it
>does a lot more than RosAsm, HLA, or Daniela/Windela/Lindela in terms
>of kicking against the mainstream way of doing things. I suggest that
>you write a manual for it and post it as an Esoteric programming
>language.
>Nathan.

there is a bit of surprise for me to see someone that says well of
that language. i say only that registers have to be of short names,
indentation is very good in assembly,
and labels - compare - jumps in code are better than C loop code
so it is good the composite instruction "if(a<b) goto label" or
"a<b#label"

På Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:29:34 +0100, skrev ¬a\/b <>:
> there is a bit of surprise for me to see someone that says well of
> that language.

If someone says well of it, be on guard for a lier.
But in the case of Nathan, this is just probably
trying to make some friends. Some people are desperate
for making friends. )

I utterly hate your language.

)
> i say only that registers have to be of short names,
> indentation is very good in assembly,
> and labels - compare - jumps in code are better than C loop code
> so it is good the composite instruction "if(a<b) goto label" or
> "a<b#label"

¬a\/b wrote:
> for me is clearer and easier than all your languages, in fact i can
> write code in that language that in another one language is impossible
> to write because too difficult.

What's your point? Many lisp programmers out there can easily cut the
size of a C program into a half/fourth with little effort and naturally
get it done quicker, but that doesn't mean it isn't "impossibly
difficult" in C by any means whatsoever. (Maybe you just aren't that
good in those other languages, perhaps?) You're also missing other
parts of the [entire] equation, but they aren't addressed here so I
won't bother with pointing them out.
> x86 assembly registers others assemblers have, are not short name
> enough

Um... I fail to see how this gives you any 'tactical' advantage over
something like C.

kinebud wrote:
>
> ¬a\/b wrote:
> > for me is clearer and easier than all your languages, in fact i can
> > write code in that language that in another one language is
> > impossible
> > to write because too difficult.
>
> What's your point? Many lisp programmers out there can easily cut the
> size of a C program into a half/fourth with little
> effort and naturally
> get it done quicker, but that doesn't mean it isn't "impossibly
> difficult" in C by any means whatsoever. (Maybe you just aren't that
> good in those other languages, perhaps?) You're also missing other
> parts of the [entire] equation, but they aren't addressed here so I
> won't bother with pointing them out.
>
> > x86 assembly registers others assemblers have, are not short name
> > enough
>
> Um... I fail to see how this gives you any 'tactical' advantage over
> something like C.

I think ¬a\/b is the same character
who originally called himself "Giuseppe" in 2003,
when he posted "The Source Code Of A Thousand Tears."

¬a\/b wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2006 18:23:55 -0800, Evenbit wrote:
> >¬a\/b wrote:
> >> Belive it or not, with my little symbols language assembly is
> >> 1000 times better than C in **in practice**
>
> >Only for you. It *is* inventive! It *is* original thought! But, it
> >does a lot more than RosAsm, HLA, or Daniela/Windela/Lindela in terms
> >of kicking against the mainstream way of doing things. I suggest that
> >you write a manual for it and post it as an Esoteric programming
> >language.
> >Nathan.
>
> there is a bit of surprise for me to see someone that says well of
> that language.

Brainfuck is also classified as Esoteric - does that "speak well" of
it? "inventive" does not always equal "good" or useful. Some
"anti-mainstream" things are self-defeating.
> i say only that registers have to be of short names,
> indentation is very good in assembly,
> and labels - compare - jumps in code are better than C loop code
> so it is good the composite instruction "if(a<b) goto label" or
> "a<b#label"

So, are you trying to write C code or Asm code? Too much mixing of HLL
features leaves you sitting on a fence.

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!